I had to modify it for 6th level characters. I don't think it's railroady at all. The party has a plethora of options, up to and including leaving town and never coming back. I will agree with one problem Don DM had, the wizard needs to be beefed up a little since he's the only fight. I made him a wizard/ summoner with his eidelon hiding in the shadows, attacking from hiding in the beginning of the encounter. Tomorrow is the end-fight and it should be pretty chaotic. I'm planning on doing as they suggest and the other group comes in right behind the PC's, demanding the other items, then the guardian wakes up and attacks. The cleric just happens to have enough onyx to animate all the skeletons in the room. That should make the cleric PC feel incredibly useful and I can't wait for Knu to burn down the inn. lol The PCs assumed the other group got the water, so they'll have to go back to collect that. The main issue I had (and it's not a big deal) was the absence of the druid and I don't like just handing magic items out as payment, especially ones that are also old relics. There's no way the guy "hiring" them to retrieve the items would agree to just hand them over once he's done with them, so I'll have him keep them until he can find a suitable place for them. Either a locked vault or a museum. Overall, it's a nice little adventure that I would recommend, but as most adventures, read it through to make sure you're ready for the conclusion.
Very cool ideas!
To answer the original question, the reason certain slots are assigned to certain abilities (i.e. headband of Mental Prowess as opposed to a belt of mental prowess) is that, every since D&D added material components, the magic system has gone off the "sympathetic magic" philosophy. The same reason the headband is used for mental stuff is the same reason you need bull hair for a bull's strength spell as opposed to a chicken feather or a pinch of salt. Symbolically, gloves or boots make sense for increasing dex while a headband makes sense for increasing intelligence.
Thanks to both of you. I guess I was thinking of an earlier edition of D&D. The structures won't really work for what I was thinking. The blanket is similar to what I was thinking about gear to help. I was thinking of the "Masterwork Tool" that gives a +2 to a skill. I was making it a camo poncho. The 50gp price makes sense, being more expensive than the blanket, since it takes more work to make a poncho than a blanket. I'll talk to the guys and see what we can come up with. We may house-rule it. Thanks again for the input. If you, or anyone else have anything to add, feel free. Always looking for more ideas.
I guess I never noticed that they made it non-typed damage. It's a little hard to believe that you can be effectively immune to severe freezing cold in an attack (with high resist energy), but take damage after being in 28 degree temperature after an hour. Even if you use the "slow blade kills" argument for the cold (Dune reference, I'm sure you get), it still seems weird.
I can't believe I've never ran into this problem before... The Endure Elements spell says "A creature protected by endure elements suffers no harm from being in a hot or cold environment. It can exist comfortably in conditions between -50 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit (-45 and 60 degrees Celsius) without having to make Fortitude saves. The creature’s equipment is likewise protected. Endure elements doesn’t provide any protection from fire or cold damage, nor does it protect against other environmental hazards such as smoke, lack of air, and so forth." So, someone can exist comfortably in -20 degree temps without making a Fort save, but at that temperature, you take 1d6 of lethal damage each round WITH NO FORT SAVE. So, how can it allow a character to "exist comfortably" with no fort save if there's no fort save to bypass because the damage is automatic?
Wondering if there's a rule clarification about using Enlarge Person while under water with a Cloak of the Manta Ray. The description of the cloak states that the wearer appears identical to a manta ray as per the Beast Shape II spell. That states that you assume the form of an animal.
So... Obviously if you assume the form of something, your form changes, but are you still a humanoid type or does your type change to animal because you assume the form of a manta? In our game, we're assuming the type changes to animal, but I was wondering if a rule was actually made on this.
So, you're saying Paizo just copied the item, changed what spell it mimics, but didn't actually pay attention to the differences between spells?
The addition of STR to damage makes sense unless, like I said, they're making the tail something other than a standard manta tail. Is there any way to get an official ruling from them on these questions? Thanks for the quick reply. I've been playing D&D since Basic edition in '82 and PF since the Beta and never actually used a Cloak of the Manta Ray.
Has there been any clarification on this? Does the +3 natural armor bonus overide the +4 in the spell description for Beastshape II since it specifically states the +3 in the item description?
I would say, while he doesn't suffer any mechanical effects (game mechanics), he should still feel the need for sleep and WANT to sleep. If I were the GM, I would start making him make Will saves to force himself to keep going, mentally, since physically, he's using magic to keep going. After a couple of days, I would start with the saves and first time he fails, he just feels too mentally and emotionally drained to stay awake. How does your character know he's doing this and the paladin doesn't? Did your character tell the rest of the group?
Yeah, not selfish at all. You're using your own money to make something beneficial to them. If they don't see it that way, tell the cleric to make you some potions or some holy (unholy?) water, at least. Tell the fighter to craft you a fancy new sword to wear so you can look cool. Tell the rogue to craft you a couple of nifty traps. It doesn't matter of you can set them. You just want them in case you ever decide to learn to set them. Spend group funds to make something for the group. Spend your own money to make something for yourself or someone else, but share it if you want.
One thing to keep in mind; a ghillie suit is a modern invention by a technologically advanced society. Think of Pathfinder as a word that never developed high technology (with the exception of a certain area) because magic took it's place. They didn't need to invent a ghillie suit because magic can do the same thing... or better. The best you'll probably get might be a masterwork item that already gives a +2, like the camo netting or the camo blanket and get a +4. It's optimal use would be by a character who is skilled at hiding in natural terrain, like The King in Yellow mentioned. Some of the training they do in the ghillie suit is sneaking up on their instructor while he watches from the back of a truck. If he sees you, you lose. I watched a special on that. It was amazing. It takes them hours and they are practically invisible and they move sooooo slow. You have to have an incredible amount or patience and endurance to do that. The suit helps, but it's also a lot of skill.
So, I did a search and haven't found anything... Fighters get Armor Training that reduces the check penalty and increases the MAX DEX, plus they can move faster in heavier armor. No mention if they are also a spellcaster, does their spell failure get any better? I would assume not (RaW) because it doesn't say so, but why not? Is there errata somewhere that says they do? To me, it would make sense, so I had to ask. If not, we'll probably end up house ruling something. Maybe each level of armor training shaves of 5%... 10%?
I'm finally getting around to converting my main character that I've been playing (and morphing) from the D&D Basic set up through 3.5. I was wondering what the average AC for a 17th level character would be. Just wondering what's hard to hit, easy to hit or impossible to hit. Not just for a wizard or a fighter. I'm just wondering about monsters (or NPC bad guys) ability to hit things at that level.
No. He was saying that a will save was a bad call, which I agree with, because fighters are supposed to be tough and ignore pain. I wasn't calling for an additional save. Just changing the kind of save to give the player a choice of avoiding pain and dropping or taking pain and hanging on. Again, that's just an option that the original poster can use if he wants to go more "real life" and say that not everyone can override their instincts all the time. Now, if the target of the spell has spellcraft and makes the roll to know what's cast, then sure, they can brace for it and take the damage if they choose.
toastedamphibian said wrote: Sure, give all the martial characters a will save to not be disarmed by a first level spell. Excellent balance call. Okay. Then a Fort save. That was just a quick post after I woke up. No need to be passive aggressive. Besides, I've seen plenty of big guys cringe and pull away from pain. When I was in the air Force, we had to get penicillin shots because there was a case of strep going around. It hurt like hell, but when me and a couple of other guys were talking about how bad it hurt, we have to laugh because a guy (that we wondered why he wasn't in the Marines due to how muscular and aggressive he was) was almost passed out and was being carried by two other guys from where we got the shots. If you like an element of realism in your game, make a judgement call as to whether the character reflexively lets go. If you want to simply go by game mechanics, let them hang on if they want. I won't criticize you for your own judgement call.
As a paladin or cleric, you're worshiping an aspect of a god. You're worshiping and teaching all aspects of the god. Only followers get to pick and choose what parts of the religion they like. Sure, Asmodeus would like to direct a good force against other good forces, but that would go against the paladin's code of honor. As I mentioned, being LG he wants to help people. He NEEDS to help people and do good. Asmodeus would give him an order, at some point, and he's either going to ditch the god or fall from grace. Either way, a paladin with THAT as a patron deity doesn't work in a roleplay scenario. Sure, game mechanic-wise, it's in the rules, so you can do it. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to play a paladin with that trait and never have an issue because the rules say it. If the GM roleplays, rather than blindly follows the rules, then it because much more difficult.
Not sure if it's much help, but in order to make your bad guys truly evil... and in turn making them challenging, have them go after the "weaker" members first. Maybe, grapple the mage, pin him (or her) and put a knife to his throat. I ran the Curse of the Crimson Throne and when the group fought a sea hag and her pet shark, they were much more than a match. She was able to drop the rogue when he was flanking her for sneak attack damage, but he was still alive. She told them to leave and they didn't, so with her first attack, she attacked the paladin and missed. Second attack which was only +6 I think, she hit the floating rogue and killed him, then tried to get away. She died, of course, but it was a significant enough battle that the party changed their tactics after that. I'm not saying to kill your players and I don't normally do that, but the hag was particularly ruthless. I'm just saying to make your bad guys fight dirty and use every party weakness they can exploit. If the wizard is bleeding out, that takes out the wizard and the cleric as they rush to save the wizard.
graystone said wrote: Wouldn't that be something that would come up in the game vs before that game? Is it really a reason to not allow it at start but a matter of STAYING one as the game progresses? From what the OP said, it sounds like he was planning on using those "ethical questions" to shift to an antipaladin. It might come up in game, but I was directly referring to Chris' post about the trait. Traits are normally taken at character creation, so it's generally assumed that it's an established paladin in the service of an evil god.
Yes. Game mechanics allow it. It's the roleplay that will be an issue. Asmodeus would ask certain things of his leaders (clerics and paladins) that would cause ethical questions. If you play in a group that simply goes by the rule books and doesn't get into the roleplay aspect of the game, there will be no problem. I think, this trait is a silly concept.
My character that I played since D&D 1e and converted up through 3.5 had a rat familiar. I didn't want it at first. Back then, you cast a spell and the roll is random. He was a remembered and loved member of the group because I interacted with it. I would roleplay feeding him, explaining things to him, having him get things for the others, etc... He was really "useful", by most others' standards until 3e, but everyone knew and remembered him before that.
For that debt collector to be effective, he would need to be LN or LE. A LG, especially a Paladin, would be too inclined to fall for sob stories. "I'm still struggling trying to feed my 5 starving children and take care of all these orphan babies. Please, just 1 more week?" Paladin gets fired because he's good and he must help those in need. If he uses his own money (or whatever it is that is owed) to pay the debt, that surely wouldn't sit well with the boss-man and the Paladin can't lie about it.
So, I'm about to join a game of Wrath of the Righteous and they need a straight arcane caster. Everything else is more than taken care of. I was thinking Elven Wizard - Evoker. Are there any achetypes that would make the character more effective? I'm starting at level 2 and haven't rolled stats yet. No idea about feats or anything. All I have is the race and class.
Ooooooh..... A survival roll to come back. Well, since you're limiting the chance of surviving a resurrection, I would allow the casting on the body so he has a better chance of surviving to balance it out a little better. Ultimately, since you're house-ruling things, you might as well house-rule that too. Don't worry about RaW. Do what works for your group.
I realize I'm late, but... Just have the bad guy break the seals as needed. The NPC doesn't have to progress along with the PC's. Simply place him at the seal when the PC's get there or if they come up with a plan to head him off at the pass, let them catch him and fight. As long as the players feel like they are racing against time, that's all that matters.
I looked at the Clandestine and ALMOST went with it. It fits perfectly with my background, but I'm going in the Bellflower Tiller prestige class so he's slightly more into liberating slaves than remaining hidden and that will become more apparent with time.
I'm taking Heretic, though. It fits with the AP (Hell's Rebels) and Sanctified Slayers focus entirely on killing enemies of the religion which wouldn't go with how I imagine the character. Ever watch Monk or Columbo? They're more subdued/ non-violent characters, but relentless in getting the bad guys.
I know I'm late to the conversation, but I've seen players that love to play RPGs, but never roleplay. They like the different aspects of it. They like to build the character and use the mechanics they put together to accomplish tasks. As long as he's having fun and not disrupting the game, I say no harm/ no foul. People get different things out of RPGs and everyone has different styles. If he just likes to swing a sword when there's something that needs to be killed or make craft rolls while everyone else is collecting rumors, I say let him. His character just isn't into the social scene and doesn't like talking to people. He lets his friends handle that, but he has their back when they're in a pinch.
|